4.6 Article

Genetic alteration with variable intron/exon organization amongst five PI-homoeologous genes in Platanus acerifolia

期刊

GENE
卷 473, 期 2, 页码 82-91

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2010.11.005

关键词

Flower development; Platanus acerifolia; Processed retrogenes; Alternative splicing; K domain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30500394, 30871729]
  2. Ministry of Education Foundation of China [NCET-04-0733]
  3. Youth Chenguang Project of Science and Technology of Wuhan City of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flower development has been extensively characterized in the model species Arabidopsis thaliana and Antirrhinum majus. However, there have been few studies in woody species. Here, we report the isolation and characterization of five PISTILLATA (PI) homoeologous genes (PaPI1-to-5) from the London Plane tree (Platanus acerifolia Willd). PaPI1 and PaPI2 show a similar genomic structure to other known PI homoeologs, but PaPI3/4/5 lack intron sequences. In addition, PaPI5 lacks the third, fourth and fifth exons which encode the K-domain. These altered gene copies may have originated as 'processed' retrogenes. PaPI2 appears micro-regulated by alternative splicing, displaying three splice forms (PaPI2a, PaPI2b and PaPI2c). RT-PCR analysis showed different expression profiles and transcript abundance for the five PaPI genes. PaPI transcripts encoding full-length polypeptides were expressed predominantly in male/female inflorescences and PaPI2a was the most abundant transcript (59%) indicating that PaPI2 may be the major functional PI-homoeolog in London Plane. Phenotypic characterization in a heterologous expression system demonstrated that the full-length PaPI product functions as a B class gene. By contrast the PaPI5 form, which lacks the K-domain, had no apparent effect on flower development. In vitro studies also demonstrated that the K-domain is required to form PaPI/PaAP3 heterodimers. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据